1. Does what Thomas Fossen call as "pragmatism" in approaching the problem of political obligation correspond or even is similar to "realist approach". I have the impression that it pretty much says the same thing.
2. After long discussions that we had in class, it is more pertinent, to my understanding, to see "political obligation" as mere means to create stability and prosperity in society; rather than having some moral principles in the first place and try to put it in a way it fits the conception of political obligation.